Category Archives: Patentability

Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.

Docket Nos. 2016-2442 WALLACH, CHEN, STOLL December 8, 2017 Brief summary: DC grant of attorney’s fees under § 285 for post-Alice decision conduct affirmed (“[i]t was IH’s responsibility to reassess its case in view of new controlling law”). Summary: IH … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Intellectual Ventures I and II LLC v. Erie Indemnity Company et al.

Docket No. 2017-1147 PROST, REYNA, WALLACH November 3, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC finding of § 101 ineligibility affirmed because first two claimed steps could be performed by humans while third step third step of “‘recognizing certain data’…without regard to … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Smart Systems Innovations, LLC (“SSI”) v. Chicago Transit Authority, et al. (“CTA”)

Docket No. 2016-1233 REYNA, LINN (D), WALLACH October 18, 2017 Brief summary: DC finding that SSI’s claims are ineligible under § 101 affirmed (e.g., not directed to “a new type of bankcard, turnstile, or database”). Summary: SSI appealed DC finding … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1728 PROST, CLEVENGER, REYNA October 16, 2017 Brief summary: DC grant of UW’s motion to dismiss because SM’s patents are patent-ineligible under § 101 affirmed ((e.g., “not directed to an improvement in computer functionality” (Alice step one) and … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service

Docket No. 2016-1502 (CBM2014-00116) PROST, NEWMAN (D), WALLACH August 28, 2017 Brief summary: Board decision that USPS had standing to pursue CBM challenge and finding certain claims patent ineligible under § 101 affirmed. Summary: Return Mail (RM) appealed PTAB decision … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Covered Business Method Reviews, Patentability, Post-grant review | Leave a comment

Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corporation

Docket No. 2016-2254 O’MALLEY, HUGHES (D), STOLL August 15, 2017 Brief summary: DC finding that VM’s US 5,953,740 relating to computer memory systems was directed to ineligible subject matter reversed. Summary: Visual Memory (VM) appealed DC dismissal of VM’s infringement … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment

Prism Technologies LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-2013, -2049 PROST, LOURIE, SCHALL June 23, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC decision of eligibility under § 101 reversed; decision of no exceptional case damages under § 285 affirmed. Summary: Prism appealed final DC decision denying its motions … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Patentability | Leave a comment